List previous Legion workflow runs, newest first, to review past delegated tasks and their outcomes.
列出军团历史运行（最新在前）。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "brigade_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a list operation and that results are ordered newest first, but omits pagination, result limits, or explicit read-only status beyond what '列出' implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds the only meaningful modifier (newest first). No words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, low-complexity list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand the ordering. It could clarify return shape or pagination, but those are minor gaps for this simple listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: '列出军团历史运行' (list brigade historical runs). It also adds scope/order '最新在前' (newest first), which distinguishes it from siblings like brigade_run (start a run), brigade_status (current status), and brigade_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reviewing historical runs, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not name alternative tools such as brigade_status for current state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.